AUSTIN — U.S. District Court Judge Sam Sparks did not make a final ruling in a controversial sonogram case Friday but suggested his hands were tied and he would likely allow the law to stay in effect.

A three-judge appeals panel last week reversed Sparks' earlier decision to temporarily stop the law on grounds that it violated First Amendment rights and was unconstitutionally vague. The appeals judges emphasized that parties suing the state likely would not win.

“What authority other than a Scottish-Irish temper would I have to reverse the (appeals panel) other than to feel good?” Sparks asked.

The Republican-controlled Legislature approved the bill last year requiring physicians to provide a sonogram before performing an abortion. A woman seeking an abortion has options to view the sonogram images and to hear the fetal heartbeat. She also is required to hear the medical explanation of the sonogram at least 24 hours before the procedure.

Supporters of the law believe it will help reduce abortions in Texas, which currently number nearly 80,000 per year.

Jennifer Martinez of San Antonio, a member of Operation Outcry, attended the hearing and supports the sonogram law.

“Women still have a legal right to choose an abortion but they would be doing it with more information,” she said. “Giving women information about their babies and then having that information, they can choose to either save the life of their unborn child or they can choose to abort.”

But Rikelman, the lawyer for the group fighting the law, told the judge it would “force doctors to violate medical ethics” and “leaves no room at all for physician judgment.”

Rikelman told Sparks he could establish a factual record that the law does not represent a reasonable regulation of medicine.

But Sparks appeared resigned to the appellate decision, which said the state's “interest in respect for life is advanced by the dialogue that better informs the political and legal systems, the medical profession, expectant mothers, and society as a whole of the consequences that follow from a decision to elect a late-term abortion.”

“I have to wait sometimes a year for an opinion from the 5th Circuit. This one came within a week,” Sparks said. “They made this statute totally enforceable, I suspect, just to prevent this court from acting. That's what it is.”

Mayela Banks of Lampasas also attended the hearing because her abortion 28 years ago has turned her into an opponent of the procedure.

“I am very happy that women of Texas will have an opportunity to see their children before making such a life-altering decision. I never had the opportunity to ask questions before I aborted my only child,” she said.